CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PARTICIPANTS AND NON-PARTICIPANTS IN THE 21 ST CENTURY MODEL CLASSROOM PROGRAM A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Western Carolina University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education By Darrell Grady McDowell Director: Dr. Ellen A. Sigler Associate Professor Department of Psychology Committee Members: Dr. Kathleen Topolka-Jorissen, Educational Leadership and Foundations Dr. Robert Crow, Psychology February 2013
132
Embed
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY …libres.uncg.edu/ir/wcu/f/McDowell2013.pdf · · 2013-08-12CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PARTICIPANTS
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PARTICIPANTS AND NON-PARTICIPANTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY MODEL
CLASSROOM PROGRAM
A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Western Carolina University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
By
Darrell Grady McDowell
Director: Dr. Ellen A. Sigler Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Committee Members: Dr. Kathleen Topolka-Jorissen, Educational Leadership and Foundations
Dr. Robert Crow, Psychology
February 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Ellen Sigler, who provided continuous encouragement
and expertise. Her support enabled me to engage in this challenge with confidence and
persistence. I would also like to thank Dr. Kathleen Topolka-Jorissen for her enthusiastic
motivation, high expectations, and sound judgment. Dr. Robert Crow’s understanding of
technology and his creative insight enhanced the writing of the proposal and this
dissertation as well.
Colleagues that have helped facilitate this project include: Beth Walton, an
outstanding retired educator, for her contributions with editing; Kimberly Martin, for her
extensive knowledge of the school system’s 21st Century Model Classroom program; and
Natalie Wittich and Brandi Osborne, for their numerous contributions and their
integration of technology within the classroom setting.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Lisa, and our three
children. They have been patient and considerate of the time and effort involved in my
participation with this program.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...5 List of Figures ………………………………………….....................................................6 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………7 Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………...9 Professional Development…………………….………………………...……….10 Guskey’s Views on Professional Development….…...………………….12 National Staff Development Council Standards……………........13 Professional Development for Technology Integration….…………..…..14 Teacher Beliefs………………………………………………..…16 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge……...………....17
ISTE NETS and NETS-T Standards.........................................................19 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...20 Conflicting Views on Technology Integration…………………………..20 Purpose of the Study……….…………………………………….………………23 Research Questions………………………………………………………23 Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………..…………………………..…...…25 Professional Development………………………………..…...…………………26 Professional Learning Communities……………………………….....….28 National Staff Development Council (NSDC)…………..………………32 Technology Integration………………………………..…………………………34 Bloom’s Impact on Technology Integration……………………………..34 Concerns about Technology Integration……………….………………...36 Facilitating Technology Integration…………………..……...……..……39 Engagement………………………………….…..…………….…40 Constructivism…………………………………………….…..…42 Professional Development for Integrating Technology……………………….…43 Knowledge for Integrating Technology………………….………………48 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)…,,,……..……50 Changes in Practice………………………………………………………………53 Teacher Beliefs………………………………………………………………..…58 Administrative Support for Technology Integration………………..……………63 Description of the 21st Century Model Classroom Program……………………..68 Technology Training………………………………………..……………69 Technology Equipment…………………………………………………..70 Challenge-based Learning……………………………………...………..71 Chapter Three: Methods…....………...……………………………………………..…...73
Participants……………………………………………………………………….73 The 21st CMC Program Teachers ………………………...………..……73 Non-participants.........................................................................................74 Instrumentation.……………………………………………………………….…74 Previous Forms of the Instrument…………………………………..……77 ISTE NETS-T……………………………………………...…………….77
Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………………78 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….79
Chapter Four: Results........................................................................................................81 Demographic Profiles of Respondents…………………………………….……..81
Quantitative Analysis of the Research Questions………..……………….......….83 Reliability and Validity……………………………..……………………84 Statistical Significance……………………..…………………………….85 Effect Size………………………………………..………………………86 Qualitative Analysis of the Study (Questions One, Two, and Three)....………..88
Technology Integration Activities……………………...………………..89 Access to Professional Development…………………………………….89 Access to Technology Equipment……………………………………….91 Beliefs About Integrating Technology…………………………………..93 Summary of the Results…………………………….......…….....………………96
Chapter Five: Conclusions………………………………..….…………………….…….99 Discussion of the Findings………………………….............……….…………..99 Quantitative Discussion of Research Questions.…….....……..…...…….99 Summary of the Findings………………....………...………………….101 Comparisons with Previous Research…………..............……….……..103
Direct Instruction…....................……....…….……………….103 Collaboration…………........…....................…………………106 Leadership……………........…………………………………106
Limitations…………………………………………………………...………....108 Conclusions………………………………………………………..……………109 Implications for Future Research……………………………………...…......…111 Implications for Practice………………………………………………………..111 Implications for Policy………………………………………………………….112 References………………………………………………………………………………113 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………...126 Appendix A: Consent Form…………………………………………………….126 Appendix B: Survey Instrument………………………………………………..127
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents.…………………………....…83 2. Reliability Statistics: Entire Survey Instrument………………………………….85 3. Item Numbers, P-values, Power, and Cohen’s d Values for Survey Items...........86 4. Results: Most Prevalent Themes Concerning Teachers’ Beliefs……...………...94
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1. Diagram of the Development of the Technology Survey.…..………………..…...75
7
ABSTRACT
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
PARTICIPANTS AND NON-PATICIPANTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY MODEL
CLASSROOM PROGRAM
Darrell Grady McDowell, Ed.D.
Western Carolina University (February 2013)
Director: Dr. Ellen A. Sigler
This study provided a unique opportunity to examine how two groups of teachers
experienced the integration of technology in a K-12 school system in the southeastern
United States. The total number of respondents (n=338) included 21st Century Model
Classroom (CMC) program teachers (n=27) and non-participants (n=311). Teachers in
the 21st CMC program were given advanced technology equipment and relevant
professional development. The non-participants received less training and had limited
access to advanced technology equipment. Guskey’s (2000) “Five Levels of Professional
Development Evaluation” was combined with technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK) (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009) to create a survey for comparing
the two groups. Cronbach’s (1984) “alpha measurement” of internal consistency
revealed a score of α=.911 for the questionnaire; hence, the quantitative survey was found
to be highly reliable. Many similarities were found among the respondents. However,
significant differences were found on nine of the forty-four quantitative survey items.
Effect size measurements were also calculated for those nine items. Open-ended survey
items yielded rich qualitative data. More than two-thirds of all respondents surveyed
8
were positive about their access to professional development and technology equipment.
They were equally optimistic in their overall beliefs about integrating technology in the
classroom. The data and the views of the teachers provided exclusive information for
improving instruction through technology integration. Keywords: quantitative,
qualitative, professional development, technology integration, collaboration,
knowledge (PCK) provided a helpful foundation for understanding the importance of
using the TPCK framework for the integration of technology (Harris et al., 2009).
Shulman (1986) suggested that teachers’ professional development should be focused on
a blend of both content aspects and teaching processes. Shulman highlighted the
following questions on the subject: “What are sources of teacher knowledge? What does
a teacher know and when did he or she come to know it? How is knowledge retrieved
and both combined to form a new knowledge base?” (Shulman, 1986, p.8). Shulman
(1986) increased expectations related to PCK and challenged teachers to make instruction
comprehensible to their students. He referred to degrees of teachablility related to
content knowledge to emphasize the importance of pedagogical knowledge. Because
teachers and students bring differing characteristics to bear on the learning environment,
any preconceptions and/or misconceptions during teaching and learning highlighted
Shulman’s explanation of the need to include PCK in professional development activities
(Shulman, 1986). Schools were in great need of a universal structure to provide the
knowledge and guide the facilitation of technology integration. Harris et al. (2009)
described the significance of recognizing pedagogy as an integral part of technology
integration:
Understanding that introducing new educational technologies into the learning
process changes more than the tools used—and that this has deep implications for
51
the nature of content-area learning, as well as the pedagogical approaches among
which teachers can select—is an important and often overlooked aspect of many
technology integration approaches used to date. (p. 395)
The basis for developing the TPCK framework was built on “Shulman’s construct
of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge as situated
within content and pedagogical knowledge” (Schmidt et al., 2009, pp. 123-124). The
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) model provided a framework for
evaluating the professional development experienced by teachers. The TPCK framework
was introduced into the research field to provide a greater understanding of the
knowledge required for teachers to effectively integrate technology in the classroom
(Schmidt et al., 2009). The TPCK framework has become widely used in the assessment
of teachers’ understanding of the integrated use of technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge for effective technology integration (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). TPCK
“was used to describe teachers’ body of knowledge in terms of how they made intelligent
pedagogical use of technology” (Koehler, et al., 2007, p. 741).
Schmidt et al. (2009) defined TPCK as a term that “describes what teachers need
to know to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices” (p. 123). The
TPCK framework covered essential areas of knowledge and practice related to addressing
intended outcomes and expectations with integrating technology. Mishra and Koehler
(2006) provided an in-depth definition of TPCK.
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is an emergent
form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components (content, pedagogy,
and technology). This knowledge is different from knowledge of a
52
disciplinary or technology expert and also from the general pedagogical
knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines. TPCK is the basis of good
teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation
of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use
technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what
makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help
redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’
prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how
technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop
new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028)
TPCK provides a body of knowledge and a logical framework for engaging students in
technology innovations, while addressing the increasing concerns about public schools
and overall student learning.
Pierson and Borthwick (2010) focused on the merits of the TPCK framework in
coordination with organizational learning and participant research initiated through
inquiry-based learning. They suggested that professional development needed to move
past the practice of measuring the self-reported satisfaction of the participants. They
referred to what was described as educational technology professional development
(ETPD), which supports the need for a planned evaluation strategy that could be
beneficial for “understanding the extent to which ETPD is effective, rigorous, and
systematic” (Pierson & Borthwick, 2010, p. 126). From the research on technology
integration, TPCK was consistently acknowledged as a renowned framework for setting
53
the terminology, context, and uniform expectations for integrating technology. Pierson
and Borthwick (2010) stated,
Layering any examination of ETPD findings with the [TPACK] model provides a
helpful lens through which to view the process in light of current pedagogical thinking
for 21st century learners and teachers. The fields of educational technology and teacher
education have come to agreement around the concept of [TPACK] to describe the
meaningful use of technology in teaching and learning. (p.127).
Changes in Practice
Ultimately, the success of technology integration will depend on classroom
teachers and their ability to use the knowledge and skills gained through professional
development to ensure success. Steiner (2004) stated, “Most of this research rates
professional development as ‘effective’ when it leads to desirable changes in teaching
practices” (p.2). Joyce and Showers (2003) maintained that understanding how teachers
use and acquire knowledge and skills was essential to creating effective professional
development activities that incorporate research-based evidence in the learning process.
Pierson and Borthwick (2010) suggested professional development should focus on the
growth of the organization and the individual knowledge of the participants. They
insisted that professional learning must include the context in which the development was
occurring. They contended that changing pedagogical practice was the ultimate goal and
recommended using familiar assessment instruments, such as surveys, interviews, texts,
and videos, to collect data for evaluating measurable teacher and student outcomes
(Pierson & Borthwick, 2010). They stated, “The potential power of educational
technology professional development (ETPD) to enhance teacher knowledge and skills,
54
and thus improve student learning, means it is worth our time to understand what works
and in what contexts” (Pierson & Borthwick, 2010, p. 130).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge has evolved as an integral element
of the technology integration process. Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley (2005)
examined 18 focus-group interviews of teachers in core subject areas in England.
Teacher participants were involved in an initiative to enhance learning through the
integration of technology. Their interviews indicated increased understanding of
pedagogical content knowledge that allowed classroom practices to be advanced and
extended through the use of technology. Teachers acknowledged concerns about a level
of interruptions associated with technology advancements, and obstructions were
addressed by focusing student attention on essential goals and objectives (Hennessy et al.,
2005).
Technology integration has advanced more rapidly in business and industry
because they were better equipped to handle large-scale change than schools and
educational organizations. Hennessy et al. (2005) investigated how digital technology
was used to initiate “already familiar activities more quickly, reliably, broadly,
productively, interactively, and how such use may be re-shaping activities” (pp. 155-
156). They suggested that the overall structure in the schools had limited the pace of
progress with technology. They insisted the government simultaneously encouraged and
constrained teachers (Hennessey, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005). Teachers’ efforts to
change their practices were affected by the complexities associated with school
communities that existed in the educational environment. They contended, “Innovation
55
and adaptation are costly in terms of the time needed to develop and establish new
practices” (Hennessey et al., 2005, p.162).
Difficulties with integrating technology in the classroom are not limited to the
United States. Researchers in England were also interested in the impact of technology
integration on schools. Hennessy et al. (2005) focused on identifying how teachers
perceived the use of technology as contributing to successful practice in schools. The
second phase of the study was used to investigate promising practices in greater depth.
All schools in the study were located within fifty miles of Cambridge University and
were relatively socially and academically advantaged. Focus groups lasted from 45-70
minutes, and a project team leader from the university or other schools facilitated
sessions. The examination focused on teachers’ perceptions of the contribution that was
made by using information communication technology and its impact on subject
pedagogies and on classroom practices.
Concerns that were investigated in England indicated the need to understand and
discriminate between curriculum change and pedagogical change. The main findings in
the interview data included the desirability of building a coherent and supportive
community of practice associated with the integration of technology (Hennessey et al.,
2005). Other findings supported providing opportunities to build teacher confidence with
technology by addressing the broad differences in the experiences between departments
and individuals. The researchers stated, “Above all, the rationale underlying technology
initiatives needs to be made clear, and the intricate relationship between ensuing
curriculum change and pedagogical change recognized” (Hennessy et al., 2005, p. 187).
They suggested that as current barriers and obstacles diminished in the classroom,
56
technology integration would play an integral role in reshaping the future of instruction
(Hennessey et al., 2005).
A clear understanding of technological pedagogical content knowledge improves
teachers’ chances of having a positive impact on student learning. Fox-Turnbull (2006)
used a task assessment study to develop a professional development program for
integrating technology in primary schools. The initial study included asking students to
complete tasks and utilized the findings to develop strategies to construct relevant
technological practice. The National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) in New
Zealand used this method. In grades four and eight (8-9 and 11-13 years of age), students
were assessed in all curricula over a four-year cycle. The assessment spanned the years
from 1996 to 2000 and measured the “Aspects of Technology” (Fox-Turnbull, 2006).
The task results were used to develop a program that reflected authentic technological
practice. Six classroom teachers and the researcher cooperatively constructed a program
that was based on developing procedural, conceptual, societal, and technical knowledge
of the relevant technological practice (Fox-Turnbull, 2006). When students were
assessed on in-context tasks that were developed with the use of teachers’ knowledge,
they showed higher measurements than when assessed on out-of-context tasks. The
results of the study revealed that when teachers have a deep understanding of the
knowledge needed for technological practices, they are better prepared to provide
authentic learning experiences. Fox-Turnbull (2006) declared, “The children’s
achievement in the in-context task was enhanced by the practice that preceded it” (p. 70).
A lack of understanding about nontraditional forms of teaching and learning could
lead to a skewed view of teachers’ own capacity with integrating technology. Kopcha
57
and Sullivan (2007) surveyed 50 teachers in one middle school to determine whether self-
presentation bias influenced teachers’ self-reports of their practices with and attitudes
toward the use of educational technology. Findings suggested that such self-report
surveys of teacher practices and attitudes related to technology in the classroom may
yield data that were inaccurate because they indicated exaggerated accounts of teacher
use of these practices. “None of the teachers had been enrolled in an educational
technology program or had any formal training in the field except for a few who had
taken a computers in education course” (Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007, p. 632).
Continuous access to training and equipment could have a positive impact on
teachers’ views and beliefs about how much they know about technology integration.
However, bias about what they think they know could have negative impact on their
responses to survey items. The school under investigation in this study had a total of 700
students. Teachers had access to two computer labs containing 24 computers per lab.
Each teacher’s individual classroom had two computers. The teacher used one, and all the
students in the classroom used the other one. Teachers participating in this study
indicated their experience with technology integration would have been more extensive
with greater access to computer equipment. Kopcha and Sullivan (2007) suggested
research conducted with teachers who had recently completed a technology program
could help to determine the degree of self-presentation bias. They contended, “Training
in a program of this type could conceivably increase the trainees’ perceptions of the
importance and social desirability of computer use, and consequently increase their self-
presentation bias on surveys related to it” (Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007, p. 643). In
addition, they suggested that when accurate data are viewed as important to the
58
investigator or to a funding agency, self-presented data might need to be supplemented
with additional measures.
Concerns about bias and other potential misunderstandings must be considered as
an important aspect of implementing technology programs. Kopcha and Sullivan (2007)
suggested that future studies on technology needed to collect and analyze alternative
sources of data in addition to the self-reported findings. Future research could include (a)
the examination of student projects related to technology-integration initiatives, (b)
performance measures based on teacher lesson plans, and (c) observations conducted by
the investigator. According to Kopcha and Sullivan (2007), “The use of such additional
measures, accompanied by the evaluation of their usability and efficacy should provide a
more complete and accurate assessment of teachers’ use of technology-related practices
in the classroom” (p. 643). They suggested future studies related to technology
integration should be concerned with minimizing inaccuracies related to self-presentation
bias.
Teacher Beliefs
Teacher beliefs can have an immediate impact on the level of enthusiasm and
persistence needed to integrate of technology in the classroom. The nontraditional
aspects of teaching with technology force teachers to make a determination about the
need to embrace or deny the importance of these new instructional tools. Hirsh (2005)
suggested the most powerful professional development approaches are successful at
changing teachers at the belief level. She was a proponent of open and respectful
conversations that allowed for the surfacing of assumptions and changing of beliefs. She
stated,
59
A significant challenge to schools is selecting the staff development approach that
aligns most clearly with the assumptions and beliefs of staff members and
produces the results desired for students. When beliefs are in alignment, change
in behavior accelerates; when beliefs underlying a new staff development
program contradict long-held beliefs of participants change can come much
slower or not at all. To expedite the change process and successfully close the
achievement gap, educators might begin the process by ensuring a thorough
understanding of the assumptions and beliefs underlying staff development
programs. (Hirsh, 2005, p.39)
Much of he success enjoyed by teachers who integrate technology is connected to
how their feelings about using new knowledge and skills. Confidence enhances the
likelihood that they will use and successfully teach students with technology integration.
Wang, et al. (2004) designed a study “to explore how vicarious learning experiences and
goal setting influence pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for integrating technology into
the classroom” (p.231). They used a Likert-style survey to measure teachers’ perceptions
of self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. The final survey included items that
asked participants to rate their levels of agreement (1- strongly disagree to 5 - strongly
agree) on their confidence with technology use. Content and construct validity were
reviewed for items on the survey. A panel of experts was assembled to individually
review the instruments and discuss the adequacy of the conceptual definition used for the
study (Wang et al., 2004). They used expert opinions to provide ratings and revisions to
ensure the content validity of the instruments. Following the collection of data for the
survey, a factor analysis was conducted on presurvey data and postsurvey data to
60
determine if the instrument measured meaningful constructs in the analysis of the
relationship of the items to the factors identified in the study (Wang et al., 2004).
An understanding of the knowledge and a level of comfort with the equipment are
essential for integrating technology. Wang et al. (2004) found that differences in mean
scores and standard deviations on presurvey scores were not significant. However, their
post survey data indicated that the group of participants who had knowledge of vicarious
experiences and goal setting had the highest mean score related to self-efficacy for
technology integration. Participants who had no vicarious experiences and no goal
setting directions had the lowest mean scores on post surveys of the four experimental
groups that were used in the study (Wang et al., 2004).
A two-way ANOVA for post survey scores indicated significant effects, which
indicated vicarious learning experiences and goal setting significantly increased the self-
efficacy of the participants in the study (Wang et al., 2004). The researchers stated,
Teacher educators might consider using both strategies when helping preservice
teachers learn about technology integration. For example, instructors might
anticipate increases in students' self-efficacy for technology integration when
exemplary uses of technology in K-12 classrooms are presented and students
explore these uses according to specific goals. (Wang et al., 2004, p.241)
This study could have implications for addressing previous concerns about anxiety and
technology integration that were noted in the study conducted by Kotrlik and Redmann
(2005).
Changing teacher beliefs is a difficult task under almost any circumstances. The
literature frequently discusses what children already know when it comes to identifying
61
their learning needs and styles. This same approach cold be used to address teachers
fears, concerns and beliefs about technology integration. Levin and Wadmany (2006)
conducted a longitudinal study that analyzed teachers’ beliefs related to “learning,
teaching, and technology, and their instructional practices, the context of integrating
technology-based classrooms” (p. 157). This three-year study examined whether, how,
and why information-rich tasks (IRT) influenced teacher’s instructional views,
knowledge and practice (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). They suggested there was still much
to learn about the relationship between teacher beliefs about learning and teachers’ actual
practices in the classroom. Their study was developed on three major assumptions: (a)
teacher beliefs come from a variety of experiences; (b) the teacher’s view on technology
can present a major barrier to the use of technology in the classroom; and (c) changing
the teacher’s paradigm was a complex matter (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). Their
assumptions included the need for using a constructivist approach to investigating
technology in the learning environment.
The integration of technology demands access to equipment; time to learn the
technology, and effective professional development. Levin and Wadmany (2006)
conducted their study in collaboration with the local municipality education department
and the Israeli Ministry of Education. Their three-year longitudinal study was conducted
between the years of 1997–2000 in a school located in a city in central Israel. A large
portion of the investigation included a qualitative case study. An exploratory case study
was actually combined with a collective study since they attempted to examine processes
that affected teachers’ beliefs and those that affected classroom practice in a technology-
based learning environment (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). Findings suggested that,
62
“spending three years in a technology-rich learning environment produces substantive
change in teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices” (Levin & Wadmany, 2006, p. 172).
They that teacher beliefs ranged on a continuum from positivist, or transmissionist, to
constructivist-based views on teaching and learning.
Fortunately, teacher beliefs are not always static or one-dimensional. Some
teachers changed their beliefs even though they remained in a specific belief paradigm,
while others shifted completely from a behaviorist to a constructivist paradigm (Levin &
Wadmany, 2006). They stated, “In the context of thinking about their own experiences in
rich technology-based classrooms, they acquired both conscious and unconscious insights
into the meaning of teaching, learning and technology through powerful and rich actions
and through reflections on these actions” (Levin & Wadmany, 2006, p. 173). The notion
that teachers were able to demonstrate that they could “hold compound beliefs
concerning learning and teaching has important implications for teachers’ professional
growth, technology integration and instructional flexibility” (Levin & Wadmany, 2006, p.
173).
It has been difficult for some teachers to align technology with their embedded
patterns and beliefs about classroom instruction. According to Palak and Walls (2009),
teachers with student-centered beliefs continued to use technology to support teacher-
centered practices. Palak and Walls (2009) surveyed 113 PK-12 teachers, including 9
males and 104 females with teaching experience ranging from 2 to 39 years and computer
experience from 2 to 20 years, averaging 9.8 years. Sixty percent taught PK-sixth grade,
and forty percent taught grades 7-12. The purpose of their study was to investigate
whether teachers who frequently used technology in technology-rich classroom
63
environments changed their beliefs and practices toward a student-centered paradigm
(Palak & Walls, 2009).
The full use of technology integration as an authentic alternative to traditional
classroom instruction may depend on the need for teachers to make students a full partner
in their learning. The quantitative results showed that the shift in teacher practice did not
occur for the participants in this particular study even though they had “(a) technology
availability at their schools, (b) had positive attitudes toward technology, (c) had
adequate technical and general support, and (d) were comfortable with technology”
(Palak & Walls, 2009, p. 436). Having teacher-centered or student-centered beliefs had
little impact as predictors of teachers’ practices. However, the quantitative data did
reveal that teachers’ attitudes toward technology were the most significant predictor of
teacher use with a variety of instructional strategies (Palak & Walls, 2009). And finally,
their findings indicated “unless the focus of technology integration is explicitly on
student-centered pedagogy, technology integration may continue to support teacher-
centered practice with inadequate, highly controlled student use in the classroom” (Palak
& Walls, 2009, p. 437).
Administrative Support for Technology Integration.
One-to-one access to laptop computers in the classroom could change the
complexion of the needs and opportunities of students. Issues of planning and logistical
organization need to be considered for successful use in the classroom. Zucker and King
(2009) described how laptops were used to teach physics at the Denver School of Science
and Technology, which was the first public high school in Colorado to have individual
laptop computers available for each student in the school. They confirmed that laptops
64
were used daily by teachers and students in classrooms that included a large percentage
of low-income students. Zucker and King (2009) found that “using computers can help
make lessons more engaging and can challenge students at their own level—while
providing instant feedback to both the teacher and students” (p. 22). They stated,
“Computers engage students; encourage independence; support differentiation; and make
assessment data, communication, and other common teaching responsibilities more
efficient” (Zucker & King, 2009, p.25). They also found that it took more time to
effectively teach students in a classroom where every student had the opportunity to use
his/her own laptop computer. However, two thirds of the teachers in their study that
taught physics to students in grades nine through twelve, where every student had access
to the technology, felt that the devices were essential to the teaching practice (Zucker &
King, 2009).
Purchasing technology equipment for the classroom can be a difficult proposition
due to the on going changes of technology equipment and unforeseen advancements in
future equipment designs. Zucker and Light (2009) predicted that a decline in the costs
of technology equipment would result in an increase in worldwide technology programs
with millions of students having access to laptop computers. They noted that policy-
makers often support increased technology access because of concerns related to issues
with economics, equity, and interests in education reform, even though at that time there
had been little established evidence about the effectiveness of large-scale laptop
initiatives.
The value of technology integration is dependent on the availability of equipment
and access to relevant knowledge. Organizational success can be limited by the beliefs
65
and concerns of the leaders in the school, or school system. Staples, Pugach, and Himes
(2005) conducted a case study of three urban elementary schools in a midsized district in
the Midwest. Each school received equal access to technology resources that were
provided by a grant from a local university. This qualitative case study included (a) field
notes from participants, (b) individual journal entries, (c) interviews with school
personnel, (d) and a chronicled timeline of technology-related priorities and events
(Staples et al., 2005). Although all the schools received equal amounts of technology
resources, principals at each school site prioritized the acquisition of the computers for
each school, resulting in an average of five computers per classroom in addition to one
computer lab (Staples et al., 2005).
A dichotomy is often invoked in discussing the implementation of technology
in the schools. In this dichotomy, the purchase and upkeep of hardware and
software is pitted against investing in professional development for teachers.
The conventional wisdom is that the investment in professional development is
almost always slighted in favor of the acquisition of equipment and software—
which is then used inappropriately or inadequately. (Staples et al., 2005, p. 305)
Despite the fact that they agreed with this dichotomy, their findings in the case studies
revealed more complex circumstances associated with integrating technology. Their
analysis found “that the ability of a school staff, through professional development
activities, to use technology well---defined here as using technology in the service of the
curriculum---is not simply the flip side of investing in hardware/software” (Staples et al.,
2005, p. 305).
Large-scale attention to strategic communication and specific planning impact the
66
success of technology integration in schools. Staples et al. (2005) suggested that teachers
should be deeply informed about ways to move back and forth in a sophisticated manner
between technology and the curriculum to ensure successful technology integration. The
investigation identified three scaffolds that appeared to have “a significant impact on—
and redefine the challenge of—technology integration: alignment with the
curriculum/mission, teacher leadership, and public/private roles for technology
recognition” (Staples et al., 2005, p. 301).
In the past teachers were able to successfully navigate a variety of expectations
and transformations that were passed down to schools as a result of societal changes.
Changes in curriculum were based on the new ideas and information, but these changes
occurred slowly over time. However, technology advancements have emerged at an
exponential rate. Teachers and administrators have been made vulnerable to the bruises
and wounds inflicted by information overload. Understanding the need to catch up with
technology advancements has become an important issue for classroom teachers and
school leaders. Staples et al. (2005) noted that in the past, professional development
asked teachers to make changes in their practice in familiar zones of operation, whereas
professional development for technology integration challenged their level of comfort.
Staples et al. (2005) highlighted the complexity of technology integration and suggested
that technology resources should always serve the needs of the curriculum first. They
suggested technology integration “requires administrators and teachers to invest real time
and effort, real fiscal and human resources in acquiring and learning to use the
technology itself and keeping up the technology precisely so that it can serve the
curriculum” (Staples et al., 2005, p. 306). And finally, they found that schools needed to
67
create a new layer of professional development to address the alignment of technology
integration and the curriculum.
The aims and goals of technology integration have changed less rapidly than the
emergence of the new equipment and increased access to the Internet and other resources.
Efforts to replicate the qualities experienced in engaging learning environments such
those described by Bloom (1984), with access to individualized attention for the learner
still provide the impetus for prescribing the professional development of teachers and for
determining the purchase and use of technology tools in the classroom.
Often resources for integrating technology are directly affected by the decisions
of school superintendents. Shuldman (2004) studied three superintendents in New
Hampshire. Findings suggested superintendents have a crucial role in the facilitation of
technology integration in schools (Shuldman, 2004). This case study was conducted to
investigate superintendents’ thinking about what they perceive as important in regard to
teachers’ efforts to integrate technology, “particularly in light of the implications their
conceptions have on the policies that drive or impede the integration process” (Shuldman,
2004, p. 338). Although some school districts have committed large volumes of funding
to provide specialized training for teachers with the integration of technology, Shuldman
(2004) found superintendents believed leadership must be provided at multiple levels
within the district to integrate technology successfully. Findings revealed the need for
superintendents to be instructional leaders with a “comprehensive understanding of
technology as an instructional tool” (Shuldman, 2004, p. 338). Shuldman (2004) also
found that superintendents believed a lack of time available for teacher professional
development and the public’s hesitation to spend money on improving teacher capacity
68
created barriers that presented negative circumstances for integrating technology in the
classroom.
Teachers in the 21st CMC program that was investigated in this study have
received on-going professional development provided by the superintendent and the
executive director throughout each school year since the program’s inception. They were
provided with advanced technology equipment, such as laptop computers, iPod touch
devices, Promethean boards, and iPad devices, in an effort to improve student learning
(Grissom, 2009). The additional training of the 21st CMC program teachers and
increased access to technology equipment were intended to have a positive impact on the
learning of all students.
The school system superintendent aligned the 21st CMC program goals with the
expectations and mission set by the North Carolina State Board of Education “that every
public school student will graduate from high school globally competitive for work and
postsecondary education and will be prepared for life in the 21st century” (Grissom,
2009, para 1). Another intended outcome of the program was to provide the initial
framework for expanding technology integration and improving instruction throughout
the school system.
Description of the 21st Century Model Classroom Program
The 21st CMC teachers met in groups by grade level and/or subjects for one full
week in August of each school year as a professional learning community (PLC), which
was defined as a collaborative team of teachers (Dufour et al., 2006). The summer
activity lasted eight hours per day for five consecutive days. The primary focus of this
PLC was technology integration. Teachers were grouped by subject area to create six
69
lessons based on the North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS). Teachers
developed these lessons using the Challenge Based Learning (CBL) framework.
Discussions focused on how to use the lessons they had created across curriculum areas
and grade levels. 21st CMC teachers also came together as a PLC six times for periodic
meetings during each school year. These gatherings lasted 3.5 hours per meeting and
were designed to allow teachers to reflect, share ideas, and compare experiences.
Technology training. The Executive Director of Technology for the school
system scheduled professional development and training activities within the six periodic
PLC meetings. Training sessions began during the first year of the program in 2007-
2008 and continued each school year through 2011-2012. Technology facilitators and
outside presenters provided in-service training during the PLC meetings. All 21st CMC
teachers were expected to participate in professional development activities during the
week in August and at all other PLC meetings. Teachers were encouraged to present
their new knowledge, skills, and practices at professional conferences. Each 21st CMC
teacher was expected to
• learn how to use the latest technology equipment provided by the program;
• share and disseminate information to her/his peers and others in the schools;
• create engaging lessons that use technology;
• know latest trends in the use of technology;
• be able to solve problems with technology equipment;
• train others to use the equipment;
• update wiki pages with new and innovative lessons and ideas;
• share information with fellow teachers, community members, and outside visitors;
70
• use resources provided and discovered during personal learning experiences with
technology;
• gain confidence in using the technology provided in the program; and
• become an instructional leader of technology integration (K. Martin, personal
communication, January 15, 2012).
Professional development in the 21st CMC program included Wimba training,
which allows teachers to communicate audibly and share documents through the use of
online computer technology. Other training was provided for using document cameras
and video recorders. The 21st CMC teachers learned to edit and download pictures and
videos for website construction at each school. They participated in training sessions on
the use of iMovie, Keynote, Edu.20, and other computer software and Internet
applications (K. Martin, personal communication, January 15, 2011). 21st CMC teachers
were expected to demonstrate their new knowledge, skills, and practices each spring
semester to a group of their peers and system level administrators with a presentation of
what they had learned during the training.
Technology equipment. The 21st CMC program furnished each model classroom
with a Promethean board, document camera, and wireless Internet access. Each teacher
also received the following technology devices:
• 30 MacBook computers for students,
• 30 iPod handheld computing devices for students, and
• 1 personal MacBook laptop computer for creating lessons and syncing lessons for
the teacher (K. Martin, personal communication, January 15, 2012).
71
Other teachers from schools within the system scheduled visits to view the new
equipment in the model classrooms as a professional development activity. They were
able to see firsthand how these 21st CMC teachers used innovative equipment to impact
the delivery of instruction. Educators, school board members, and political leaders
throughout North Carolina and across the nation have visited the 21st Century Model
classrooms (2009).
The school system provided continuous support to 21st CMC teachers on the use
of advanced technology equipment through online communications and face-to-face
instruction at PLC meetings. Online communications were provided to emphasize the
independent and self-sustaining use of technology equipment. Most training activities
included a brief introduction of new knowledge and skills, followed by an allotment of
time for teachers to practice their skills with the use of any new equipment (K. Martin,
personal communication, January 15, 2011). Much emphasis was placed on using
technology equipment to facilitate challenge-based learning (CBL) activities in the
classroom.
Challenge-based learning. CBL was developed as a technology-based
instructional process in accordance with the benefits associated with problem-based
learning, where the teacher’s main responsibility changes from disseminating information
to guiding the construction of student knowledge by investigating a specific problem that
is often related to greater global issues (Johnson, Smith, Smythe, & Varon, 2009). Johnson and Adams (2011) described their findings related to the CBL framework in the
following statement:
The students’ and teachers’ perceptions of technology, and their comfort with
72
both the tools and their own skill sets were a key focus of the research, as the very
nature of CBL presumes extensive access to technology. Indeed, CBL is a
pedagogy that seems ideally suited to teaching in one-to-one classrooms, and
especially where every student has access to an Internet-capable device at home
and in school. Having such access allows students to continue to muse and reflect
on their challenges, and … extends the school day and expands the classroom. (p.
19)
Students were challenged to solve actual problems related to the working world to
stimulate interest and real world ideas that demanded greater access to technology than
what was normally found in a typical classroom. The 21st CMC program provided the
appropriate technology equipment to pursue the objectives noted in the CBL framework.
The research that was reviewed for this study exposed a number of conflicting
findings related to providing professional development and technology integration.
Nevertheless, the effort to merge these two important aspects of teaching and learning
with valid and reliable tools identified in the literature became a complex but intriguing
challenge. The process for the development of the first two research questions for this
current study on teachers’ acquisition and application of knowledge was identified in the
findings of Guskey (2000). The third and final research question focused on teachers’
beliefs about integrating technology as identified in the works of Levin and Wadmany
(2006).
73
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Participants
The population for this study included all K-12 teachers (n=1593) from a school
system located in the Piedmont area of the Southeastern United States. Respondents that
completed the survey for the study (n=338) were divided into two different categories for
the purpose of collecting comparative data. One of the groups identified within the
sample of respondents (n=27) received continuous access to advanced technology
equipment and intensive professional development as select members of the 21st Century
Model Classroom (CMC) program. The other group (n=311) did not have access to the
extensive professional development program specifically designed for improving
teachers’ competencies with integrating technology in the classroom.
The 21st CMC program teachers. The 21st CMC program required potential
candidates to fill out an application. The application process included a written document
submitted by teachers to (a) demonstrate their written communication skills, (b) express
their level of experience with technology use, and (c) describe their personal vision for
fulfilling the responsibilities of a teacher in the 21st CMC program. The final round of
the application process included a face-to-face video interview with a committee of
technology experts and central office administrators to make the final selections for the
program. This extensive application process was used to select K-12 teachers (n=39)
who were enthusiastic about integrating technology; therefore, the teachers that were
invited to participate in the 21st CMC program did not necessarily represent all teachers
in the school system.
74
Non-participants. The second group of participants in the study either did not
apply to the program or were not selected to participate in the 21st CMC program. Non-
participants (n=1554) from the school system were targeted for the investigation because
they did not receive the extensive professional development and technology equipment
provided by the 21st CMC program.
Instrumentation
The development of the instrument for this study emerged from the need to find a
valid and reliable tool for investigating technology integration in the classroom while
examining professional development used for improving teacher competency with
technology integration. Previous studies by Koh, Chai, and Tsait (2010) and Hsu (2010)
included technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) in their investigation of
technology integration. This study logically and strategically combined TPCK with
Guskey’s (2000) Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation. This
questionnaire was designed by using evaluation levels 2 and 4 of the Five Levels of
Professional Development Evaluation identified by Guskey (2000). Level 2 addressed
teachers’ acquisition of knowledge and skills, and Level 4 addressed teachers’ application
of knowledge and skills. The TPCK highlighted in Koh et al., (2010) and Hsu (2010) and
described by Harris et al. (2009) provided important information and guidance in the
development of the survey items for this study. Although the previous studies noted were
conducted in countries outside of the United States, they were helpful because of their
focus on TPCK in the development of their surveys. A diagram of the instrument for the
study is illustrated in Figure 1.
75
Figure 1. Diagram of the Development of the Technology Survey
Levels 2 and 4 fromGuskey's Five Levels of
ProfessionalDevelopment Evaluation
Technologicalpedagogical content
knowledge(TPCK)
Combination ofGuskey's Five Levels of
ProfessionalDevelopment Evaluation
and TPCK
Knowledgeand skillsacquired
ResearchQuestion 1
Knowledgeand skillsapplied
ResearchQuestion 2
Survey
Comparegroups 1
and 2Teachers' beliefsabout integrating
technology
Research Question 3Final
analysis ofdata for
the study
76
This study was developed in effort to gather information about technology
integration from teachers by comparing their experiences and highlighting some of the
successful strategies that emerged in the classroom. The survey that was used asked
participants to include demographic information that was beneficial for analyzing the
statistical findings and open-ended responses. The instrumentation was guided by the
theories of Guskey (2000) and Harris et al. (2009). Section one of the survey included 13
items that allowed respondents to categorize themselves by their own perspectives in
regard their individual level of expertise with integrating technology. The choices that
were available on the first 13 Likert-scale responses were developed by using 21st
Century skills that were included in the mission and vision of the 21st CMC program. In
section two, participants were asked to identify additional activities for integrating
technology that were not found among the selections on the provided list. Respondents
were asked to respond to this section in the form of an open-ended response. Section
three of the survey addressed teachers’ acquisition of knowledge and skills with
technology integration. This section included a four-item Likert-response scale. Items
ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This section included 13 items on an
even-numbered scale, which eliminated neutral middle responses, which can distort
measures of central tendency and variance if a neutral unforced response was provided
(Malhotra, 2006). Section four used 18 Likert-response scale items to question
respondents about how participants applied their knowledge and skills to integrate
technology into the curriculum. Sections five and six used two open-ended items to
focus on respondents’ access to professional development and technology equipment.
Section seven used an open-ended item to question participants about their beliefs in
77
regard to integrating technology in the classroom. The remaining sections of the survey
focused primarily on demographics and requested information about teaching experience,
gender, degrees earned, National Board Certification status, grade span, and status of the
teachers in the 21st CMC program and of non-participants. The last item on the survey
provided participants with the opportunity to receive a summary of the results from the
study by entering their email address in the space provided.
Previous forms of the instrument. Items for the survey were developed after an
extensive review of the literature on professional development and technology
integration. The opportunity to consult with practicing professional development and
technology experts during the collection of data was an integral component in the
development of the items selected for the survey. Items from previous studies were
scrutinized and modified in the development of survey items used to address the research
questions in this study. A factor analysis performed on survey items from the previous
studies of Koh et al., (2010) and Hsu (2010) identified items with high alpha values in
relation to TPCK (Harris et al., 2009). A small number of survey items from previous
studies were removed because of duplication and similarities found between the original
survey items from Koh et al., (2010) and Hsu (2010). A review of the differences
between the cultural and educational characteristics of the participants in the previous
studies was used to determine the items that were selected, modified, or eliminated for
use in this study.
ISTE NETS-T. The International Society for Technology in Education and
National Educational Technology Standards (ISTE NETS) and Performance Indicators
for Teachers (NETS-T) (2008) were embedded in the survey items used for this study.
78
The NETS-T standards and indicators were found in the following categories: (a)
Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity, (b) Design and Develop Digital-
Age Learning, Experiences and Assessments, (c) Model Digital-Age Work and Learning,
(d) Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility, and (e) Engage in
Professional Growth and Leadership. The consent form for this study is located in
Appendix A. Survey items for this study are located in Appendix B.
Data Collection Procedures
Permission was secured from the superintendent of schools to survey all K-12
teachers in the school system that were willing to respond to the questionnaire developed
for the study. All teacher participants were informed about issues of confidentiality and
protection from harm (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). All teachers in the school system
were invited to complete the online survey. A consent form allowed teachers to accept or
decline the invitation to participate in the study.
Qualtrics online survey software was used to collect the data from participants.
Email address contact information was provided to the researcher by the school system
for the purpose of conducting the survey. Each participant received access to an online
questionnaire. All teachers in the 21st CMC program had a high level of experience with
using online communication systems, which should have been beneficial for completing
and returning the surveys for the study. All non-participants also had continuous access
to the online survey at their individual schools. Teachers could respond to the invitation
from off-campus communication systems after working hours. Potential respondents
consisted of a small but inclusive sample of 21st CMC teachers and a wide array of non-
participant respondents. Since all teachers had ample access to electronic communication
79
systems, the online survey instrument was an effective tool for collecting data in this
particular study.
The online survey was provided to participants for a total of two weeks. Recent
research related to online survey distribution indicated that the two-week time frame for
access was beneficial for this type of study (NPD Online, 2011, para. 3). An email
reminder for teachers to complete the survey was sent one week before the end of the
process as suggested by Heppner and Heppner (2004) to improve the rate of return.
Teachers were offered the chance to participate in a random drawing for a $100.00 cash
incentive in return for completing the survey, as recommended by Creswell (2008). The
drawing was held at the end of the data collection process.
Data Analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to examine
the quantitative responses in the study. T-tests were run to generate p-values and to
determine if there were significant differences between the responses of the 21st CMC
program participants and the non-participants. Statistical procedures were also used to
compare the demographic information that was submitted by the respondents.
Cronbach’s (1984) alpha coefficient for determining internal consistency was used to
determine the reliability scores of each subscale, and to provide and overall reliability
score for the entire survey. Other statistical procedures in the analysis addressed effect
size by using Cohen’s d (1992) scores and scores for power. Effect size was calculated to
determine the practical significance of the scores found among the teachers in the 21st
CMC and non-participants. Qualitative survey responses were analyzed from both
groups of respondents to gain a deeper understanding of their perceived levels of access
80
to professional development and to technology equipment. Finally, qualitative data
related to teacher beliefs were analyzed to compare differences between the two groups
of survey respondents.
81
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to compare differences and similarities between
how teachers in the 21st CMC program and non-participants acquired and applied new
knowledge and skills for integrating technology in the classroom environment. This
investigation also examined how participants described professional development
activities, access to technology equipment, and their beliefs about integrating technology
in the classroom environment. The research questions included
1. What are the differences and similarities between how teachers in the 21st CMC
program and non-participants acquire knowledge and skills for integrating
technology?
2. What are the differences and similarities between how teachers in the 21st CMC
program and non-participants apply knowledge and skills for integrating
technology?
3. How do teachers describe their beliefs about integrating technology in the
classroom?
Demographic Profiles of Respondents
Surveys were emailed to all teachers (n=1,593) in a single school system in the
Piedmont of the Southeastern United States. Information was gathered from all of the
respondents that completed the survey (n=338) for an overall response rate of 24%.
Respondents included participants in the 21st CMC program (n=27) and non-participants
(n=311). Demographic categories included the following characteristics: (a) years of
teaching experience, (b) gender, (c) highest college degree, (d) National Board
Certification status, (e) grade span taught, and (f) designation or not as a 21st CMC
82
teacher. Ultimately, the most significant statistical differences in the demographic data
were found to be associated with whether or not teachers were designated as a 21st CMC
teacher or as a non-participant. However, the qualitative data included relationships and
perspectives that included almost every aspect and characteristic noted in Table 1.
beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36(3), 231-250.
Wexler, D. (2000). Integrating computer technology: Blurring the roles of teachers,
students and experts. Educational Studies, 31(1), 33-43.
Yang, S., & Huang, Y. (2008). A study of high school English teachers’ behavior:
Concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into English
instruction. Graduate Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Zucker, A., & King, K. (2009). Teaching with laptops. Science Teacher, 76(9), 22-26.
Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Perspective laptop programs for students. Science, 323,
(5910), 82-85.
126
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Consent Form
Dear Rowan-Salisbury School System Teacher, As a doctoral student at Western Carolina University, I am requesting your participation in a study concerning K-12 professional development and technology integration in the Rowan-Salisbury School System. For this study, I am asking you to complete this online questionnaire. I value your participation and the information you can provide is VERY important. This questionnaire may be completed at your convenience and will take only a few minutes of your time. You will have access to the online survey for a two-week period. Information will be collected from 9/--/12 until 10/--/12. Putting your email address in the space provided on the survey will enter you in a random drawing for a chance to win a $100.00 cash incentive. Even if you include your email address, the information on the survey will remain confidential. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may conclude your participation at any time during the survey by simply closing your browser. Only data entered and submitted will be processed. The data collected will be used only in a combined (aggregate) format, and no one will be able to identify you or your information. There are no foreseeable risks. However, by participating in this study you will help to further the knowledge base regarding professional development and technology integration. You may contact the Principal Investigator Darrell McDowell at (704) 636-4420 or at [email protected] (You can also contact Dr. Ellen Sigler, faculty director of the project at Western Carolina University, at (828) 227-3369 or [email protected]) if you have any questions or concerns. If you have concerns about your treatment as a participant in this study, please contact the chair of WCU’s Institutional Review Board through the office of Research Administration at WCU (828) 227-7212. All K-12 teachers in the Rowan-Salisbury School System will be given the opportunity to complete the questionnaire. By completing the survey, you are giving your consent to participate in the study. To get started, you may click on the first link or CLICK HERE. Thank you, Darrell McDowell, Ed.S
127
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 1. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES Please click on all items that apply to you.
o Used the latest technology equipment provided by the school system o Shared information with teachers in my school o Shared information with others in the school system o Created engaging lessons that use technology o Learned the latest trends in the use of technology o Solved problems with technology equipment o Trained others to use the technology equipment o Updated wiki pages with innovative lessons o Shared information with outside visitors o Discovered technology resources during personal learning experiences o Used school resources to enhance student learning o Gained confidence in using technology for instructional purposes o Served as an instructional leader of technology integration
2. In the space provided below, describe activities not found in the “check all that apply" list above that you have used to integrate technology in your classroom.
TECHNOLOGY KNOWLEDGE 3. Click on the response that best describes your level of knowledge with integrating technology in your classroom. 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Agree 4=Strongly Agree I assess student performance in my classroom.
1 2 3 4
I adapt my teaching strategies to meet the needs of all students.
1 2 3 4
128
TECHNOLOGY and the CURRICULUM 4. Click on the response best describes how you use technology in your classroom. 1=Never 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Often 5=Always
I adapt my teaching style to students with different learning styles.
1 2 3 4
I use effective teaching approaches to guide student learning.
1 2 3 4
I know how to manage the instruction in my classroom.
1 2 3 4
I have sufficient knowledge about the curriculum.
1 2 3 4
I have a strong understanding of my subject matter.
1 2 3 4
I have a diverse set of strategies for developing content.
1 2 3 4
I choose technology that enhances my approach to each lesson.
1 2 3 4
I use technology equipment in the development of the curriculum.
1 2 3 4
I select technology to use in my classroom that enhances student learning.
1 2 3 4
I combine content, technology, and teaching in my classroom.
1 2 3 4
I provide leadership for helping other teachers with technology.
1 2 3 4
129
I analyze student participation during group technology activities as part of students’ evaluation process.
1 2 3 4 5
I design different evaluation criteria for students’ technology integration activities.
1 2 3 4 5
I divide students into groups while teaching lessons with technology integration.
1 2 3 4 5
I differentiate lessons for students who lack technology skills.
1 2 3 4 5
I design different technology learning activities for different student achievement levels.
1 2 3 4 5
I ensure students have the technology resources to complete homework.
1 2 3 4 5
I use technology to teach lessons for remediation purposes.
1 2 3 4 5
I instruct students on how to search the web for useful resources.
1 2 3 4 5
I remind students about rules related to Internet etiquette before they ever go online.
1 2 3 4 5
I ask students to obey intellectual property rights on the Internet.
1 2 3 4 5
I remind students to avoid adult websites.
1 2 3 4 5
I let students know about the possible negative effects of overusing technology.
1 2 3 4 5
130
I arrange time for students to rest during long periods of computer use.
1 2 3 4 5
I use the Internet to search for information to provide supplementary course material for students.
1 2 3 4 5
I use technology to incorporate music in my course material.
1 2 3 4 5
I use presentation software in my class.
1 2 3 4 5
I solve hardware problems during class.
1 2 3 4 5
I use Internet communication to contact parents.
1 2 3 4 5
I use email to connect with students.
1 2 3 4 5
ACCESS TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY 5. Describe the amount of access you have to participate in professional development for integrating technology in your classroom.
6. Describe the amount of access you have to the equipment needed for integrating technology in your classroom.
7. Describe your beliefs about integrating technology in your classroom.
DEMOGRAPHICS
131
8. Click on the response that indicates the number of years you have been teaching (years of experience).
o 0 to 4 years o 5 to 9 years o 10 to 14 years o 15 to 19 years o 20 to 24 years o 25 or more
9. Click on the response that describes your gender.
o Female o Male
10. Click on the response that describes your highest earned degree.
o Bachelor's degree o Master's degree o Educational Specialist or other advanced degree o Doctoral degree
11. I have successfully earned National Board Certification status.
o Yes o No
12. Click on the response that best indicates the grade span in which you currently teach.
o Elementary school o Middle school o High school
13 I am a teacher in the 21st Century Model Classroom program. DISPLAY LOGIC USED based on (YES or NO) to determine whether a participant even got the chance to see item 14.
o Yes o No
*Item 14 was not used as an active part of the survey data that was collected. Respondents were not contacted about collecting e-Pub projects due to the large volume
132
of useable information collected among the other 43 remaining items on the survey. 14. I give permission for the researcher to view my e-Pub project as another source of data for this study.
o Yes o No
15. If you wish to receive a summary of the aggregate results from this study, enter your email address in the space provided below. This will also allow you to be entered in a drawing for a chance to win a $100.00 cash incentive for completing this survey. The drawing will be held at the end of the data collection process.